SZKLY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 200

SZKLY
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 200
S568/2007

1. The applicant is a national of the People's Republic of China.  On his arrival in Australia he sought a protection visa, claiming to be a "refugee" within the Refugees Convention and Protocol.  His claim was based on alleged persecution because of his involvement in union activities.

2. The applicant's claim for protection was refused by a delegate of the Minister.  The applicant then sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's application.

3. The applicant's case before the Tribunal included a contention that he had moved to Hong Kong in 2005 but continued to support the union activities of former colleagues living and working in China.  He claimed that after he attempted to publicise their plight in Hong Kong, he had been threatened by police, told that he was under surveillance and detained for a time.

4. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was a credible witness.  It noted that his passport showed that he had lived in Hong Kong from 1995 or 1996.  It noted that, from about 1996, he had held a British/Hong Kong passport.  It observed that, during the hearing, he had tried to distance himself from his obvious connections with Hong Kong.  However, it concluded that he had not been involved in union activities; had not suffered persecution on that account; and had not provided plausible evidence to indicate that he would suffer harm in the future were he to return to China.

5. From the Tribunal's rejection of his application, the applicant sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM). He made complaints based on ss 424A and 425 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). However, the Federal Magistrate found no error in the Tribunal's decision. He dismissed the application. On appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, Jacobson J affirmed the Federal Magistrate's decision.

6. The application for special leave to appeal to this Court makes complaints of error of law and improper exercise of power on the part of the Tribunal, and alleges that there was no evidence to support its decision.  However, nothing in the papers filed in support of the application suggests any error in the reasoning of the courts below.  The Tribunal's decision essentially turned on adverse credibility findings made against the applicant.  Those findings have not been shown to be tainted by jurisdictional error.  The application is dismissed.

7. 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