SZJXH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 201

SZJXH
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 201
S579/2007

1. The applicant is a national of the People's Republic of China.  In January 2005, soon after his arrival in Australia, he sought a protection visa on the basis that he was a "refugee" within the Refugees Convention and Protocol.  A delegate of the Minister refused the application.  The applicant sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  When an initial determination of the Tribunal, adverse to the applicant, was set aside by the Federal Court of Australia, a second hearing was held before a differently constituted Tribunal.  This also led to the affirmation of the decision of the delegate.

2. The applicant's claim was based on what he said was questioning, detention and mistreatment following his expression of concern about quality standards in a seafood factory in which he worked.  He claimed to fear persecution because the authorities had concluded that he was "anti-government".  However, the second Tribunal rejected this claim on the basis that the applicant lacked credibility, such that his evidence could not be accepted.  It reached this conclusion because of what it said were internal inconsistencies in his evidence and, further, inconsistencies with the evidence he had given before the first Tribunal.  Thus, the second Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had been detained or mistreated, was regarded as anti-government, or was otherwise owed protection obligations.

3. The applicant sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court (Nicholls FM).  He claimed that the Tribunal had exhibited bias against him.  The Federal Magistrate found that there was no evidence to support a conclusion of bias and rejected the other complaints made by the applicant suggesting breaches of s 91R and s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

4. The applicant appealed to the Federal Court of Australia.  Greenwood J, exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court, found no error in the approach to the issue of bias by the Federal Magistrate, no error in the application of s 91R of the Act, and no failure to comply with s 424A.  The appeal was therefore dismissed.

5. The application to this Court is based on a notice of appeal of a familiar, template variety.  The applicant's written case does not meaningfully present issues founding a reasonably persuasive case of jurisdictional or other legal error.  We are not convinced that an appeal would enjoy reasonable prospect of success, were special leave granted.  The application is therefore dismissed.

6. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

M. D. Kirby
24 April 2008 J. D. Heydon