SZINB v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 531

[2007] HCATrans 531

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S484 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZINB

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 9.23 AM  

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant was born in the People’s Republic of China and claims to be a citizen of Hong Kong, where he had lived since 1986.  He arrived in Australia in 2005 and sought a protection visa. He claimed to fear the adverse attention of Chinese authorities in Hong Kong on account of his participation in delivering bibles to the Chinese mainland and his association with a member of a Christian group.  A delegate of the first respondent refused his application for a protection visa on 22 October 2005.  The applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for review of that decision.

Referring to country information, the Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim that he would be monitored by the Chinese Public Security Bureau while in Hong Kong.  The applicant did not claim to fear persecution by the local authorities in Hong Kong.  The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution, and the application was refused.

An application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision was refused by Emmett FM on 27 July 2006. The Federal Magistrate correctly held that there was no breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth); there was no evidence of actual or apprehended bias; and there was no evidence to indicate that the Tribunal did not provide the applicant with adequate opportunity to respond to its concerns.

An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Cowdroy J on 30 November 2006. No error had been shown in the decision of Emmett FM.

The applicant's case before this Court discloses no question of law that would justify a grant of special leave.  Accordingly, 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 9.25 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED