SZIMP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 360

SZIMP
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 360
S605/2007

1. The applicant is a national of Nepal.  He arrived in Australia in September 2005 and applied for a protection visa.  A delegate of the Minister refused the application. 

2. The applicant sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  An initial decision of the Tribunal was set aside by the Federal Magistrates Court.  In November 2006, a differently constituted Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim.  On this occasion, the Tribunal stated that it was not satisfied on the evidence that the applicant would face a real prospect of Convention-related persecution were he to return to Nepal.  It also concluded that his claim to fear such persecution was not well founded and that he thus fell outside the protection of the Refugees Convention and Protocol.

3. The applicant sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court (Cameron FM). The complaint in that Court was substantially that the Tribunal had failed to give "reasons" in accordance with s 430 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). The Federal Magistrate rejected that contention and the application was dismissed.

4. An appeal was then taken to the Federal Court of Australia (Ryan J). In addition to the complaint based on s 430 of the Act, the applicant raised for the first time a complaint based on s 424A of the Act. Both complaints were rejected. Much of the applicant's argument was addressed to a contention that the reasoning of the Tribunal was illogical and irrational. The Federal Court concluded that, assuming irrationality to be a ground warranting judicial review, it was not established in this case.

5. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. He now claims that he was denied procedural fairness; himself raises the issue of relocation (which was not discussed by the Tribunal); and alleges non-compliance with s 424A of the Act.

6. No reasonably arguable grounds of appeal are disclosed.  We are not convinced that an appeal to this Court would enjoy reasonable prospects of success, were special leave granted.  The application is therefore refused.

7. In accordance with Rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

M. D. Kirby
20 June 2008 J. D. Heydon