SZQBM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 153

SZQBM

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2012] HCASL 153
S177/2012

1. The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China.  She arrived in Australia on 11 August 2009.  She applied for a protection visa on 31 May 2010.  A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship refused to grant the visa.

2. The applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for a review of the delegate's decision.  The applicant claimed to fear persecution in China because she had harboured a Falun Gong practitioner who was later caught by the police.  She claimed to have been ill-treated by the police because of this incident.  Since arriving in Australia, the applicant said that she had started practising Falun Gong. 

3. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. It doubted the applicant's truthfulness because it considered features of her account were implausible and there were inconsistencies in it. The Tribunal rejected her account of events in China. It was satisfied that the applicant had engaged in some Falun Gong related activity in Australia but this was disregarded for the purposes of the review in accordance with s 91R(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

4. An application for judicial review of the Tribunal's determination was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court (Nicholls FM). 

5. An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Buchanan J) was dismissed. 

6. The applicant applies for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Court.  Her proposed grounds are in template form and make unparticularised assertions that the Federal Court failed "to hear the evidence given by the applicant" and failed to identify the jurisdictional error made by the Tribunal.  She also makes an unparticularised assertion that Buchanan J and Nicholls FM were each affected by bias.  There is nothing in the material filed in support of the application to lend the slightest colour to that serious charge.  Her written case does not engage with her proposed grounds of appeal nor with the reasons of the Court below.  It reiterates the factual basis of her claims.

7. If special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success.

8. The application is dismissed.

9. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
13 November 2012 V.M. Bell