SZLBS v Minister For Immigration And Citizenship and Anor

[2008] HCASL 453

SZLBS
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 453
S216/2008

1. The applicant is a national of the People's Republic of China.  She arrived in Australia on 25 January 2007 and applied for a protection visa, claiming to be a "refugee" pursuant to the Refugees Convention and Protocol.  The basis of her claim was that she had been a practitioner of Falun Gong; had been responsible for printing Falun Gong materials; had been dismissed from her employment as a result; and had been mistreated by officials.

2. This application was rejected by the delegate of the Minister.  That rejection was then the subject of an application for review to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  In May 2007, the Tribunal dismissed the application for review and affirmed the delegate's decision.  It did so on the basis that the applicant had demonstrated very little knowledge of the practices of Falun Gong; had departed China on her own passport without difficulty from the authorities; had failed to afford detailed information to sustain her claim of harassment by officials; and had merely associated herself with Falun Gong in Australia in order to support her claim for protection (see Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), s 91R(3)). It was on these bases that the Tribunal affirmed the rejection of the claim for protection.

3. On an application for judicial review to the Federal Magistrates Court, Cameron FM found no jurisdictional error. He rejected the allegation of bias; dismissed the suggested breach of s 424A of the Act; and described the claim as essentially one that sought to re-argue the merits. On 5 May 2008 these conclusions were not disturbed, on appeal, by Logan J, exercising the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia. His Honour's reasons are expressed in unremarkable terms that suggest no error.

4. There are no prospects that the applicant's application would succeed in this Court in identifying any jurisdictional error or other relevant error of law.  The Tribunal's decision was rightly held to have been open to the Tribunal upon the evidence before it.  The application for special leave is therefore dismissed.

5. 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
7 August 2008 J.D. Heydon