SZJDO v MIAC & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 725

[2007] HCATrans 725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S120 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZJDO

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 9.08 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of the People's Republic of China.  She arrived in Australia in February 2006 and promptly applied for a protection visa, claiming to be a refugee entitled to protection under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

In March 2006, a delegate of the Minister refused the application.  The applicant then applied for review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  In June 2006, the Tribunal refused to disturb the delegate's decision.  This led, in turn, to unsuccessful applications for judicial review in the Federal Magistrates Court (Emmett FM) and, on appeal, in the Federal Court of Australia (where Jessup J exercised the appellate jurisdiction of that court).

The applicant's case was that she had been an outspoken critic of the government of the People's Republic of China and had received threats on that account.  The steps that she took to claim refugee status followed an alleged warning that she received, whilst in New Zealand, to the effect that police in China were seeking to arrest her.  The Tribunal was unconvinced that the applicant would suffer persecution if returned to China.  It pointed to the paucity of the evidence relied on by the applicant who did not really explain, beyond asserting, her conduct in China that would possibly attract a persecutory response.  The fact that the applicant was able to travel overseas might suggest that she was not of special interest to the Chinese authorities.  The Tribunal found that her claims of fear of persecution were not credible.  They were dismissed on the merits.

The efforts to secure judicial review followed a predictable course. There were complaints of bias on the part of the Tribunal; breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth); of "cursory" attention to the facts of the case; and of a lack of opportunity to give evidence. However, as Jessup J pointed out in the Federal Court, if the treatment in the Tribunal was "cursory", the applicant was largely responsible. She failed to place sufficient factual material before the Tribunal to make out her case. This made it difficult for the applicant to succeed in her application for judicial review, given the requirements for success in an application of that kind.

Because the applicant was unrepresented in the courts below, we have carefully examined the file to see if there was any hitherto unrevealed basis for the intervention of this Court.  We have found no such basis.  The result is that the application for special leave must be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented and has filed a written case, her application has been dealt with pursuant to 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 for special leave.  I publish that disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.10 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED