SZLEE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 555

SZLEE
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 555
S345/2008

1. The applicant is a national of the People's Republic of China.  He arrived in Australia in January 2007 and applied for a protection visa.  He claimed to be entitled to protection as a refugee within the meaning of the Refugees Convention and Protocol. 

2. The basis of the applicant's claim was her status as a Falun Gong practitioner and the pressure that she asserted had been applied to her in China to give up that practice.

3. A delegate of the Minister having refused the visa, the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was a genuine Falun Gong practitioner nor that she had come to the adverse attention of authorities in China on that account. It noted that she had previously departed China in 2006 and had returned before later coming to Australia. In accordance with s 91R(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), the Tribunal disregarded activities undertaken in Australia since arrival. From the refusal of review by the Tribunal, the applicant sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court. On 18 February 2008, Smith FM rejected the application. He found no jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. This decision was affirmed, on appeal, by the Federal Court (Reeves J). Before that court, the applicant sought leave to add fresh grounds of alleged bias. The Federal Court found no evidence of bias and no prospects of success on any of the grounds raised.

4. In her application for special leave to this Court, the applicant does not address the decision of the Federal Court.  She complains about the standard of interpretation at the Tribunal.  Her written case is substantially devoted to factual and merits assertions.

5. The application would have no prospects of success were this Court to grant special leave to appeal.  The complaint about the standard of interpretation is unsupported by evidence.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Federal Court's decision.  The application for special leave 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.

M. D. Kirby	J. D. Heydon
2 December 2008