SZIKN v MIMA and Anor

[2007] HCATrans 356

[2007] HCATrans 356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S423 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZIKN

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 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  He arrived in Australia in September 2005 and promptly applied for a protection visa.

His application was refused by the delegate of the Minister.  The applicant sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  In December 2005 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising him that it had considered all of the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision.  The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence.  In January 2006, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he did not wish to do so.  It was on that footing that the Tribunal dealt with the application on the papers.

The foundation for the applicant's claim to protection was his assertion of a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of political opinion.  He claimed that he was the General Secretary of a unit of the Pakistan People's Party which had opposed the military regime in Pakistan and demanded the restoration of democracy.  He contended that, on this account, he was threatened and arrested, as well as assaulted and harassed by political opponents.

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a member, still less a General Secretary, of the political party nominated.  Essentially, it rejected his assertions on credibility grounds.  It therefore dismissed his application and confirmed the decision of the delegate.

The applicant sought judicial review in the Federal Magistrates Court.  His application came before Smith FM in June 2006.  The Federal Magistrate found that there was no arguable jurisdictional or other legal error in the procedures followed, or conclusions reached, by the Tribunal.  It dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant then sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, where the appellate jurisdiction was exercised by Nicholson J.  His Honour concluded that no error had been shown on the part of the Federal Magistrate and that there was no arguable ground to warrant disturbance of his decision.

The applicant's draft notice of appeal filed in support of his application for special leave is of a template variety that has become familiar to this Court.  It refers to the decisions of this Court in the Muin and Lie litigation but without indicating specifically their relevance to his case.  Essentially, the applicant's complaints are addressed to the evidence and to the findings of fact.  In the circumstances of this case, this does not enliven judicial review.

No error has been demonstrated in the approach and conclusion of the Federal Court, affirming the Federal Magistrate.  There are no prospects of success in an appeal, were special leave granted to appeal to this Court.  The application must therefore be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, his application has been dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application and I publish the disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.35 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED