SZLHA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2008] HCASL 541
SZLHA
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 541
S312/2008
The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. On 24 February 2007 a delegate of the first respondent refused her application for a protection visa. On 14 August 2007 the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. The applicant claimed to fear persecution as a Falun Gong practitioner, and to have been detained, mistreated and subjected to a reporting regime by authorities as a result. She claimed to have gone into hiding and fled China to avoid further arrest and detention for her Falun Gong practices. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), noting various inconsistencies between her business visa application and her protection visa application. Based upon those inconsistencies, and the ease with which the applicant had left and re-entered China, prior to coming to Australia, the Tribunal took an adverse view of her credibility. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was a Falun Gong practitioner. Although she had attended various Falun Gong practices and protests since her arrival in Australia, the Tribunal took the view that she had done so to further her application for refugee status: pursuant to s 91R(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal disregarded those aspects of her claim, and found that she was not owed protection obligations.
The Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM) dismissed an application for review of the Tribunal's decision on 4 February 2008. The Court rejected the applicant's claims that the Tribunal had breached s 424A of the Act. His Honour held that the Tribunal was under no obligation to investigate the applicant's claims. Other complaints went to the merits of the Tribunal's decision, which revealed no illogicality. His Honour could not discern any jurisdictional error.
On 28 May 2008 Flick J dismissed the applicant's appeal to the Federal Court. The Tribunal had considered the information before it and made findings as to credit and of fact within its jurisdiction. It complied with the requirements of s 424A. A claim that there was "no evidence" was without merit.
The application to this Court is brought out of time, and the applicant seeks an order under r 41.02.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 dispensing with the requirement to comply with the time limit in r 41.02.1. We would not make this order. The applicant has not raised any question of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal. The Tribunal's decision was based upon its view of the applicant's credibility, one not affected by jurisdictional error.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
W.M.C. Gummow S.M. Kiefel 17 October 2008
0
0